Game publishers' lobbying group the Entertainment Software Association announced today that it has hired a new head of government relations (i.e., lobbying).

Jennifer Manner comes to the ESA by way of Skyterra Communications and the Federal Communications Commission, where she was senior counsel.

Manner replaces Ed Desmond, who exited the ESA for a post in the toy biz last September.

Interestingly, an ESA press release makes it a point to mention that Manner is a "long-time Democrat." We don't recall seeing a similar industry hiring announcement addressing an appointee's political affiliation.

Of Manner, former FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy offered high praise:

Jennifer is an outstanding choice for this position. With her broad experience communicating effectively with multiple public and private sector stakeholders and tackling complex regulatory matters, the industry and the ESA will benefit from Jennifer’s leadership.

Comments

I would say it speaks to her and the ESA's position on net neutrality. Which is counter to the stance of the gaming consumer. The ESA wants net neutrality and Internet regulation, while the gaming consumer would like the option of services similar to LimeLight Network where gaming traffic is given priority.

No, only some game consumers are against net neutrality. Many of us do more with our internet connection than just play games. Some of us have lives outside gaming and want everything they do to have equal priority.

So where is the strong gaming angle for net neutrality? Seems like you are a gamer who happens to want net neutrality, why is the ECA so vested in this issue when by your own admission gaming reasons are extraneous if not all together present?

"lives outside gaming" you say but is not the ECA representing my gaming life?

I know you do not speak for the ECA but these differences do have to be reconciled at one time or another as the community seems split on the issue to begin with.

The ECA support Net Neutrality on the stance that ISPs may decide that gaming related technologies use too much bandwidth and would then filter them much like Comcast did with P2P. There is also the stance that ISPs could charge extra fees to game content providers in order to give them priority access to their customers while not doing so for other content providers.

I support Net Neutrality because I don't think that an ISP should be allowed to charge any content provider outside their area of service fees to gain priority access. I don't think ISPs should charge consumers extra to do what they want to do.

That gaming tier that thelobbyist points out scares me as well. Who decides what goes into that? How does a startup business get their game related streams into that fast lane? How do you prevent an ISP from purposefully degrading less profitable gaming streams?

Next, I support Net Neutrality because of a lack of competition in ISPs. Many areas of the US are serviced by only 1 or 2 ISPs. How would one oppose an ISP who filters content that they use regularly? You cannot switch to another ISP because there are no alternatives.

These are questions you need to ask when you oppose Net Neutrality.

Here is another thought. Let's say my ISP does offer a gaming tier of service, but as a part of that service they degrade something else I do regularly online say video streaming. Now let's also say that they offer a video teir, but they degrade gaming to compensate? What am I supposed to do when I do both equally?

Could you clarify when you say "what goes into that?" in regards to LimeLight networks?

Also one could argue that lack of competition in ISPs is a valid argument against net neutrality as well. You would ostensibly still be locked into the whims of your current ISP as there would be no incentive for competition in your area.

it would seem a more productive course would be to try to foster an environment that is appealing to other ISPs to start up in your area. Granted that is not an easy task but certianly no less severe than a nation wide mandate in regards to net neutrality.

Could you clarify when you say "what goes into that?" in regards to LimeLight networks?

Meaning, who decides what is a valid gaming stream. Let's take Flash as an example. Flash can be used to make games, display video and music, advertising, full blown websites etc. How will they determine what is gaming when it comes to Flash? Will they just speed up all of it or will they try to figure out what is an actual game. From a packet sniffer perspective they all look like Flash. There is no way to say to a packet sniffer, "This is a Flash Game."

Also one could argue that lack of competition in ISPs is a valid argument against net neutrality as well. You would ostensibly still be locked into the whims of your current ISP as there would be no incentive for competition in your area.

I may still be locked into my current ISP, but at least I know that nothing is blocked or degraded.

But competition could still be fostered by offering faster connections at a lower price. It is not that hard to be competitive.

I guess what I am saying is why should my ISP choice be based on who filters what I do online the least. That is a bit like asking "Do I want a kick in the balls or a kick in the neck?"

When you say "they" do you mean Limelight? It seems that a valid gaming stream would be dictated by consumers willing to pay the likes of LimeLight with the understanding that they would have an increase in bandwidth. Not so much a "decision" but rather a market reality.

In regards to competition being fostered, what you say is indeed true but it is also a circumstance that exisits right now without net neutrality (offering high speeds/lower price) but as many point out implementing net neutrality would give no incentive to increase infrastructure making you not only locked in with your current ISP but current technology as well. Ultimatly net neutrality appears to be a sword in a job meant for a scalpel.

When you say "they" do you mean Limelight? It seems that a valid gaming stream would be dictated by consumers willing to pay the likes of LimeLight with the understanding that they would have an increase in bandwidth. Not so much a "decision" but rather a market reality.

Wait, I don't think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the customers have to take the time to flag gaming streams for the network? Why should the customer have to do the legwork for the ISP?

I wanted to know who you are talking about when you say "they". I did not mean that customers would flag streams but they would indicate their preferences with thier wallets. Meaning a "valid" game network would be the one that gamers flock to due to increases in speed, reliability, or some other factor. A label after the fact based on then present circumstances would be what I am suggesting.

I cannot answer for a hypothetical ISP but the issue is somting you would have to bring up with them before you became their client or choose to subscribe to this new service. Though the specificity of the problem you present surely has numerous answers that are more dynamic than the hatchet job that would be net neutrality. It will be hard to reach a perfect solution but that does not mean we should not work towards one.

"Next, I support Net Neutrality because of a lack of competition in ISPs. Many areas of the US are serviced by only 1 or 2 ISPs. How would one oppose an ISP who filters content that they use regularly? You cannot switch to another ISP because there are no alternatives."

2 is if your lucky...

"Here is another thought. Let's say my ISP does offer a gaming tier of service, but as a part of that service they degrade something else I do regularly online say video streaming. Now let's also say that they offer a video teir, but they degrade gaming to compensate? What am I supposed to do when I do both equally?"

Likewise it also means they are spending more money on products to throttle only specific known ports or performing some serious live DPI which could instead have been spent on the infrastructure for what would probably be considerably less cost.

So to make sure I understand this report correctly, the ESA has basically hired a new lobbyist to continue to push the government to create stricter IP laws (ala: DMCA and the mysterious ACTA), and pursue people who put mod-chips into Game consoles while seeking to not do something illegal such as some homebrew. Do I have a basic grasp of it?

Of course, she'll also be lobbying to keep a lack of game bills like the waste of perfectly good tax dollars we're about to see in Utah (economy can't be that bad if they can keep wasting money on this) from happening, as of which I'd say, fight the fight.

Infophile: @Matt: Apparently Dan Aykroyd actually is involved. We don't know how yet, though, but he's apparently going to be in the movie in some way.08/02/2015 - 4:17am

Mattsworkname: I still hold that not having the origonal cast invovled in any way hurts this movie, and unless the 4 actresses in the lead roles can some how measure up to the comic timing of the origonal cast, i just don't see it being a success08/02/2015 - 12:46am

Mattsworkname: Mecha: regardless of what you think of it, GB 2 was a finanical success and for it time did well with audiances ,even if it wasnt as popular as the first08/02/2015 - 12:45am

MechaTama31: I think they're better off trying to do something different, than trying to be exactly the same and having every little difference held up as a shortcoming. Uncanny valley.08/01/2015 - 11:57pm

MechaTama31: Having the original cast didn't do much for... that pink-slimed atrocity which we must never speak of.08/01/2015 - 11:56pm

Mattsworkname: Andrew: If the new ghostbusters bombs, I cant help but feel it'll be cause it removed the origonal cast and changed the formula to much08/01/2015 - 8:31pm

Andrew Eisen: Not the best look but that appears to be a PKE meter hanging from McCarthy's belt.08/01/2015 - 7:34pm

Mattsworkname: You know what game is a lot of fun? rocket league. It' s a soccer game thats actually fun to play cause your A Freaking CAR!08/01/2015 - 7:02pm

Mattsworkname: Nomad colossus did a little video about it, showing the world and what can be explored in it's current form. It's worth a look, and he uses text for commentary as not to break the immerison08/01/2015 - 5:49pm

Mattsworkname: I feel some more mobility would have made it more interesting and I feel that a larger more diverse landscape with better graphiscs would help, but as a concept, it interests me08/01/2015 - 5:48pm

Andrew Eisen: Huh. I guess I'll have to check out a Let's Play to get a sense of the game.08/01/2015 - 5:47pm

Mattsworkname: It did, I found the idea of exploring a world at it's end, exploring the abandoned city of a disappeared alien race and the planets various knooks and crannies intriqued me.08/01/2015 - 5:46pm

Andrew Eisen: Did it appeal to you? If so, what did you find appealing?08/01/2015 - 5:43pm

Mattsworkname: Its an interesting concept, but it's not gonna appeal to everyone thats for sure,08/01/2015 - 5:40pm

Andrew Eisen: That sounds horrifically boring. Doesn't sound like an interesting use of its time dilation premise either. 08/01/2015 - 5:36pm